Re: Was Christ Married? -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:29:52 03/21/06 Tue
Author: Unbiased
Subject: Re: Was Christ Married?
In reply to: Quizno210hopper 's message, "Was Christ Married?" on 15:28:59 03/20/06 Mon

Neither of you has a persuasive argument here. And true you can "win" a debate by many means.

Your logic equation falls apart to paradox, since Christ has a dual nature. You never address how to deal with the paradox so your equation is invalid.

Here is another example where the dual nature creates a paradox:

A = God made the law : thou (man) shalt not kill
B = Christ is God
C = Christ is man
D = God is allowed to kill, and has done so many times OT
E = Man is not allowed to kill.

Conclusion: Christ is allowed to kill? (A+B=D?)
Conclusion: Christ is not allowed to kill? (A+C=E?)

You need to either expand your definitions or change your equation before you have a valid argument.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Re: Was Christ Married? -- Quizno210hopper, 17:15:18 03/21/06 Tue

Actually to kill in your equation is the paradox. In that Christ commanded (as an example) David to kill the Palestinians in war to protect Israel (the basis having value), yet Christ did not command David to kill Uriah to cover his (David's) sin with Bethsheba. In the sense that Christ is the giver of the commandment He is also the judge of the application of that commandment.

My argument doesn't have this paradox becuase in the case of man, we have the commandment to protect and the the commandment not to kill but in the process of protection we might have to kill.

Hopper

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Was Christ Married? -- Unbiased, 07:49:29 03/23/06 Thu

You have proven my point with your statement:

"In the sense that Christ is the giver of the commandment He is also the judge of the application of that commandment."

So since Christ (God) is the giver of the commandment for men to marry, he is also the judge of the application of that commandment and can exempt Himself from it.

THERFORE your equation is not absolute and therefore invalid in supporting your contention that Christ was married.

Additionaly, there is no real need to prove your equation wrong (I just wanted to do it for fun) since:

1) As Veritas pointed out, you have never actually addressed the debate topic and instead created a forumula to prove the plausibility of Christ getting married. So even if I didn't blow up your formula, it does not matter. Your formula does not actually answer the question. No matter what logical approach you use, it only serves plausibility and does not prove the actual. In other words you are wasting time. I don't know why though. It was a simple question after all.

2) You completely missed my point. Your equation actually DOES suffer from paradox in that Christ (God) commanded MEN to marry. But Christ IS BOTH God and Man and does not "fit" into your limited definition of HIS nature (you only apply the definition to his humanity). The PARADOX exisits in that God did not command God to marry. He commanded MEN to marry. So by 1/2 Christ's nature He is commanded (by himself) to marry, but the other 1/2 of His nature He is NOT commanded to marry. A SOLID FORMULA MUST ACCOUNT FOR ALL VARIABLES AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. But regardless, its a moot point since all you did was evade and postulate a plausible circumstance proving nothing.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Was Christ Married? -- Quizno210hopper, 14:25:17 03/23/06 Thu

>You have proven my point with your statement:
>
>"In the sense that Christ is the giver of the
>commandment He is also the judge of the application of
>that commandment."

And given a particular circumstance (in this case to protect the life of His chosen people) Christ invoked the commandment to kill.

>So since Christ (God) is the giver of the commandment
>for men to marry, he is also the judge of the
>application of that commandment and can exempt Himself
>from it.

You make a errant assertion in summary you make the claim that because Christ commanded David to kill Palestine in war for the purpose of protecting His children, He therefore must be allowed the type of variance in marriage. In order to establish precedence the relationship of killing to marriage needs to bridge the valid purpose variable in your precedence. In other words you will need to provide for me a scriptural case that Christ commanded not to marry for a greater purpose. Until then we can assume that they are not equal objectives and a precedence can not exist.

>THERFORE your equation is not absolute and therefore
>invalid in supporting your contention that Christ was
>married.

Your finding is first of all incomplete, though you have provided a possible objection to my equation, as I stated above your assertion is unsupported in the case of marriage because precedence is not established. So based on this objection, the equation stands.

>Additionaly, there is no real need to prove your
>equation wrong (I just wanted to do it for fun) since:

Again, you simply made errant claims to precendence which I soundly refuted.

>1) As Veritas pointed out, you have never actually
>addressed the debate topic and instead created a
>forumula to prove the plausibility of Christ getting
>married. So even if I didn't blow up your formula, it
>does not matter. Your formula does not actually
>answer the question. No matter what logical approach
>you use, it only serves plausibility and does not
>prove the actual. In other words you are wasting
>time. I don't know why though. It was a simple
>question after all.

Again, LV never presented an argument, he simply provided a challenge to prove he is wrong that there is no proof/evidence of the marriage of Christ. I stated that I did not know of written evidence to the fact that Christ was married and therefore I had to establish the relationship with circumstantial evidence. Which I have done.

>2) You completely missed my point. Your equation
>actually DOES suffer from paradox in that Christ (God)
>commanded MEN to marry. But Christ IS BOTH God and
>Man and does not "fit" into your limited definition of
>HIS nature (you only apply the definition to his
>humanity). The PARADOX exisits in that God did not
>command God to marry. He commanded MEN to marry. So
>by 1/2 Christ's nature He is commanded (by himself) to
>marry, but the other 1/2 of His nature He is NOT
>commanded to marry

again you can not make this claim without precedence

A SOLID FORMULA MUST ACCOUNT FOR
>ALL VARIABLES AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. But
>regardless, its a moot point since all you did was
>evade and postulate a plausible circumstance proving
>nothing.

Christ has no paradox. He is perfect, whether man or God He, if the scriptures are correct, is perfect (both man and God). He would follow all the commandments that He gave to man in order to be the perfect offering. The biology of man is to procreate. In the Garden Christ and His Father commanded Adam and Eve to procreate. Christ's natural man would therefore have to comply with the commandment given by himself to man. In order to protect His perfection as a God He would need to do that under particular guidelines which he has created (the commandment to marry-LDS folks prefer to term it as eternal marriage directed under the priesthood and sealed for time and all eternity). Thus if He is to remain perfect in the flesh, He would have to procreate. To remain perfect in the Law, He would have to marry. There is no paradox. The human side of Christ must be perfect as well as the God side of Christ.

Hopper

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]